3 ms·

> The devil is in the details. What does "us stopping and them stopping will likely be brokered in a single deal" mean? It means a single agreement would outli

> The devil is in the details. What does "us stopping and them stopping will likely be brokered in a single deal" mean? It means a single agreement would outline both conditions. Not sure what isn't clear there. > What about the scenario where Russia doesn't care about the West and continues to occupy Ukraine for months, maybe years, in the future? I believe I commented on that exact scenario: "sanctions would continue for an indeterminant (but likely not indefinite) time." > Right now I see a lot of "we apply pressure Until They Stop (TM)" but I don't see where "Until They Stop (TM)" ends unless we're planning to enter another Cold War where we sever communications with Russia forever. Seeing as how we didn't sever communications with the USSR forever in the first Cold War, I doubt that'd be a thing we did in the second. Like with everything else, we'd keep punishing them until we stop feeling the need. Right now there is a need: maybe it pulls them off of Ukraine. If that winds up not happening, maybe we keep them going for a while as punishment. Its a pretty simple give and take.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
> "sanctions would continue for an indeterminant (but likely not indefinite) time." Right, so here "indeterminant" is the "devil in the details". Is this the matter of days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? Sanctions are always a calculated risk. Their goal tends to be to destabilize regimes by making it difficult for members of the regime to move money or otherwise live their lives, placing hopefully direct pressure on the regime itself. But if the regime feels comfortable staying the course despite the sanctions, then what are we achieving here? I'm not against sanctions and I think sanctions are a necessity for modern diplomacy; but they need to have a clearly understood end goal in mind. Right now there seems to be a lot of moralizing and very little actual game theory in an escalating conflict with a nuclear power. Is the end game here to morally shame Russia or is it to end this conflict? > Seeing as how we didn't sever communications with the USSR forever in the first Cold War Communications between citizens of the West and the USSR was effectively severed for the duration of the Cold War. That's the question. Is the end game of these sanctions to start another Cold War or not?
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > Is the end game of these sanctions to start another Cold War or not? End game as in intent, or end game as in result? The intent is stopping the war in Ukraine. The result remains to be seen.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    End game meaning intent. Is this meant to be a punitive action or is it meant to hasten the war to a close, and will sanctions lift if the war in Ukraine ends with the loss of Ukraine or a months long conflict?
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      It's meant to make the war more expensive, financially and politically, than originally planned, potentially changing the ROI enough to change Putin's mind. The longer it goes on, the greater the cost.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago

> "sanctions would continue for an indeterminant (but likely not indefinite) time." Right, so here "indeterminant" is the "devil in the details". Is this the matter of days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? Sanctions are always a calculated risk. Their goal tends to be to destabilize regimes by making it difficult for members of the regime to move money or otherwise live their lives, placing hopefully direct pressure on the regime itself. But if the regime feels comfortable staying the course despite the sanctions, then what are we achieving here? I'm not against sanctions and I think sanctions are a necessity for modern diplomacy; but they need to have a clearly understood end goal in mind. Right now there seems to be a lot of moralizing and very little actual game theory in an escalating conflict with a nuclear power. Is the end game here to morally shame Russia or is it to end this conflict? > Seeing as how we didn't sever communications with the USSR forever in the first Cold War Communications between citizens of the West and the USSR was effectively severed for the duration of the Cold War. That's the question. Is the end game of these sanctions to start another Cold War or not?

BobbyJo 5y ago
> Is the end game of these sanctions to start another Cold War or not? End game as in intent, or end game as in result? The intent is stopping the war in Ukraine. The result remains to be seen.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  End game meaning intent. Is this meant to be a punitive action or is it meant to hasten the war to a close, and will sanctions lift if the war in Ukraine ends with the loss of Ukraine or a months long conflict?
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    It's meant to make the war more expensive, financially and politically, than originally planned, potentially changing the ROI enough to change Putin's mind. The longer it goes on, the greater the cost.